Comments on: DeVry Annexation Meeting Wednesday

By: Judd Owen

Judd Owen — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:05:27 +0000

Correcting myself: Decatur’s MU ordinance does allow for single-family detached houses, as DM said in his original post. “Detached townhouses,” to be precise (if that IS precise).

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:58:33 +0000

thanks for the update Judd.
However, if you’re saying though that because DeVry’s proposal to the City was the same as to the County, the development will be the same whether it’s annexed or not, I’d have to disagree. It’s possible, but I see any development of this size as being a very lengthy process that will involve a lot of give and take. While I trust the city of Decatur to take into account the needs and concerns of the City (schools) and the neighbors (park, traffic and pedestrian increases), I don’t trust the county to address all of our concerns as effectively–or to even take them into account.

By: Pam

Pam — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:24:02 +0000

Haven’t we figured out yet that many people want to be in Decatur despite higher taxes? The simple answer is that property is more valuable if it is within the Decatur City Limits vs. unincorporated Dekalb.

By: Brad Steel

Brad Steel — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:28:34 +0000

Eric,
Like the tax code itself, the definitions have byzantine complexity. If you want to go through the pain of learning more about it. Here’s a place to start:

http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/il2009/2009summary.odn?INPUTNAME=METRO12060M12060*1308999999%2BDeKalb+County&selection_type=county&stname=Georgia&statefp=13&year=2009

I hope the link works.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:46:15 +0000

To help me more fully understand the issue, can someone please define the terms “affordable housing” and “low-income?” Are there actual numbers associated with these terms?

I ask this because we have seen how difficult it is to assign actual numbers to socio-economics. An example is Obama’s controversial definiton of what constitutes a “rich” person (and I’m only using this as an example, not as fodder for a political conversation).

So for example, does low-income mean something like “less than $25,000 per year?” If it’s something as simple as that, are other factors taken into account, such as that earner’s expenses? Maybe that person makes only $25,000/year, but has no mortage, no children, no need for a car, etc…and that amount is sufficient.

Anyway, you get the idea. I’m just looking for a baseline so I can start to formulate an educated opinion.

By: Decatur Metro

Decatur Metro — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:37:40 +0000

Thanks for the thorough update Judd. Dave has a good one over at InDecatur too.

It sounds to me like DeVry is just doing what they can to make the property as marketable as possible. Having a plan in place is a lot like bringing a stager into an empty house in order to sell it. If people are presented with a vision instead of having to dream it up themselves they’re more eager to buy it.

As for why they want to be part of Decatur, I think it’s a given. There’s a cache to Decatur, due in large part to it’s school system, public works, police and fire. I think that trumps any sort of excess red tape that adds to the process.

That said, Scott and Judd’s point about the “plan” is an interesting one. Obviously if they got the zoning changed to MU that would hold regardless of the buyer. Maybe they’ll go through the process and get the plan approved by the city, thereby making the property even more desirable, since a new buyer could just start building, and not get stuck in tape. Just theorizing.

By: Judd Owen

Judd Owen — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:08:47 +0000

That’s a good question, Scott. I have more questions since the meeting than I did before. DeVry is the seller. They say they don’t have a developer, but they have a pretty bare-bones plan, presumably to pitch the property to buyers and/or to pitch annexation to Decatur. I assume that a developer will have his own ideas about what to put there, so it seems when we talk about annexing this property, all we know about what will go in there is that it will fit within the parameters of Decatur’s MU zoning, which I’m not familiar with. Commercial and residential, with the residential being anything but detached houses?

So without a developer, the economics of it confuses me. Taxes in Decatur are significantly higher, which is why the businesses in between us and AE and many neighboring households have been up in arms about annexation. Why would DeVry want to get annexed now, without a buyer, in this economy, when they know Decatur wants to annex it and can do it in a month when the buyer appears? On a property like that, those taxes add up to a lot of money.

Relatedly, if I’m a developer, how does being in Decatur increase the value of the property? I understand that the process may be more streamlined and has other advantages, but how does it increase the value? The location is the outskirts of the city, and being annexed doesn’t change that. Higher taxes means higher rent for retailers, means harder to fill. And a similar thought for residential. Who would want to pay more to live in the same development in the same location? A developer would have to think carefully about what sort of residential he wanted to put in that location in City of Decatur.

DM: DeVry and their reps did the presenting. They said that they wanted to go with Decatur, since we have a MU zoning that DeK doesn’t have, and that would provide a simpler and more predictable process. Peggy Merriss, Amanda Thompson, and Fred Boykin were on hand, along with about 15 or so neighbors, who seemed have mixed opinions. Some were wary of creeping annexation. Some mistrusted DeKalb and would prefer to see Decatur control it. Some (I’ll let you guess who) raised the question of the impact on the schools. DeVry’s idea is up to 400 residential units, with more 2 and 3 BR than other places along DeK Industrial. They mentioned Glenwood Park as a comparable development.

By: Ridgelandistan

Ridgelandistan — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:21:04 +0000

“And I for one, would love to see the city bargain for a park in there, as that area of the city has to walk a long way to get to a swingset.”

amen! to that Chris.

The “greenspace” they showed us was pretty much the existing kudzu swale near the creek that they couldn’t build near anyway. There also seemed to be a lot of stammering and mumbling to the question of late night drinking in quasi restaurants. The overall tone of last night’s discussion was to ensure that this project is both kid/family UNfriendly yet also doesn’t provide the amenities young adults want either ie. bars and nightclubs. It’s all rather moot as the proposed “development” plan is not being put forward by an actual developer.

One argument still trumps all though. Do we want the city to have a say in what goes on the property or the county? To my mind this is not a hard decision.